Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mojo 1.0 Beta

mojolang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 252 posts

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#121

Post by MohamedMabrouk »

pjmlp wrote: post #103
MohamedMabrouk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this framing, so? Cpp, Julia are more widely adopted, used in HPC. it does not mean that people shouldn't start, learn new languages.

In the LLM age, maybe the focus should be elsewhere instead of syntax.

is that so? People are still reading their code to understand it and ask (or make modifications). even in the (LLM age) language design, readability is still as relevant as before.

I don't see the superficial comparisons between why this new Y when we have X are not really helpful. Languages and system got adopted not for their stated goal only, but for the underlying details capabilities, good design which translates to better user experience and ecosystem growth.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#123

Post by digdugdirk »

ainch wrote: post #10

As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs. The last time I booted it up, I tried to do some basic string manipulation just to test stuff out, but spent an hour puzzling out why `var x = 'hello'; print(x[3])` didn't work, and neither did…

It does almost seem like they're trying to recreate the Nim programming language in this regard.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#124

Post by bmandale »

flakiness wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone in ML who's interested in performance, I'm keen for Mojo to succeed - especially the prospect of mixing GPU and CPU code in the same language. But I do wonder if the changes they're making will dissuade Python devs. Unless it's open sourced, it's a moot point, as most Python devs wont come anyway.

https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#contributing-to-mojo > We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo, but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort. So we will continue to plan and prioritize the Mojo roadmap within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out. I hope they stick to their original…

open source does not mean open community. you can just throw tarballs over the wall

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#125

Post by jlundberg »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #120
flakiness wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/#contributing-to-mojo > We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo, but the language is still very young and we believe a tight-knit group of engineers with a common vision moves faster than a community-driven effort. So we will continue to plan and prioritize the Mojo roadmap within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out. I hope they stick to their original…

> We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo Translated from corporatese it means "it will never happen".

With Chris Lattners track record, there is little reason to doubt they actually will open source this.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#127

Post by melodyogonna »

ainch wrote: post #12
modeless wrote: post #4

When I first heard about Mojo I somehow got the impression that they intended to make it compatible with existing Python code. But it seems like they are very far away from that for the foreseeable future. I guess you can call back and forth between Python and Mojo but Mojo itself can't run existing Python code.

In their original pitch that was definitely part of it: take Python code, add type hints, get a big speedup. As they've built it out it seems to have diverged.

It was always going to be a long-term thing, if it were even possible. You can't make a compiler that can compile Python into efficient machine code in just a year (which was how long Mojo had been in development when it was announced).

The messaging was changed because people got sold too hard on that, and kept trying Mojo with the expectation that it could compile existing Python code when it couldn't. What Modular did was change the messaging to reflect what Mojo is today, and provide a roadmap[1] of what they hope it'll turn into in the future. As it evolves, the messaging will evolve with it to continue reflecting current capabilities.

1. https://mojolang.org/docs/roadmap/

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#128

Post by ModernMech »

jlundberg wrote: post #125
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're committed to open-sourcing all of Mojo Translated from corporatese it means "it will never happen".

With Chris Lattners track record, there is little reason to doubt they actually will open source this.

It’s not Chris Lattner who gets to make the call though. He has investors to the tune of $300 million, and making them happy is the reason it hasn’t been done yet. A lot of people, very reasonably, relieve it’s not possible to satisfy them and also the development community, and when when push comes to shove it’ll be the investors who win because they have the money. So it’s not Chris Lattner’s track record that makes people worried — it’s the track record of investors choosing control over openness, which is a pretty solid record.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#129

Post by rvz »

logicchains wrote: post #8

Very bold of them expecting people to use a language with a closed source compiler in the 2020s.

CUDA is closed source (and will never be open sourced) and everyone is fine with it.

Modular is giving you at least a public promise that they will open source Mojo it this year but some how here it is a problem.

Unbelievable.

Re: Mojo 1.0 Beta

#130

Post by IshKebab »

pjmlp wrote: post #68
fibonacci112358 wrote: post #22

Sadly for them, Nvidia didn't stay still in the meantime and created the next generation of CUDA, CuTile for Python and soon for C++, through CUDA Tile IR (using a similar compiler stack based on MLIR). Event though it's not portable, it will likely have far greater usage than Mojo just by being heavely promoted by Nvidia, integrated in dev tools and working alongside existing CUDA code. Tile IR was more likely a res…

And for not staying behind, Intel and AMD are doing similar efforts, and then we have the whole CPython JIT finally happening after so many attempts. Not to mention efforts like GraalPy and PyPy. And all these efforts work today in Windows, which is quite relevant in companies where that is the assigned device to most employees, even if the servers run Linux distros. I keep wondering if this isn't going to be another…

The CPython JIT has barely had any impact on its performance. CPython is always going to be dog slow.
Post reply on HN